D&D 5E Why everyone think that Battlemaster is better than Samurai?

[Hayato]

Everytime that I see a guide about fighter, BM is better rate than Samurai. For while, I just think that people overrated the subclass. Can anyone explain it to me?

 

[flametitan]

The most simple reason is that the BM manoeuvres can be used to boost your Damage when you hit, make a miss into a hit, add special effects on a hit, be used to take special actions in exchange for foregoing an attack... It's more versatile, and while each one is limited to affecting one attack, it also recharges on a short rest, so at the lower levels, it's just straight better.

It's possible that the fact that it affects all of your attacks on that turn might bring it up at higher levels (especially once Rapid Strike comes into play), but the BM still has the advantage of the bonus effects granted by the dice.

 

[unknowable]

Samurai is fine. Battlemaster is just more versatile in what it can do and because it gets it's four dice back on a short rest.

Heck most of it's abilities trigger after an attack hits or after you roll, so you aren't ever wasting your limited ability. And then you have fun stuff like commanders strike if you have a sneak attack rogue or sharpshooter archer in the party. Oh and many manuvers give extra damage to boot.

It is an objectively better subclass, but 5e works in such a way that a samurai will still be happy with their frequent advantage, especially at later levels with gwm feats.

That said, if you are in a party that grants a lot of advantage then a samurai will lament at times. Like any party with a swashbuckler shield master rogue.

 

[Valetudo]

Most the fighter subclasses are pretty close on the balance factor in actual play. Even the champ is close behind despite the complaing. Im not so sure about the purple dragon though. But I wouldnt worry about which ones better or stronger. Just play the one you like.

 

[unknowable]

Most the fighter subclasses are pretty close on the balance factor in actual play. Even the champ is close behind despite the complaing. Im not so sure about the purple dragon though. But I wouldnt worry about which ones better or stronger. Just play the one you like.

Purple dragon is pretty awful. For a support fighter it offers little in the way of support. Still very playable though, the core fighter is a strong combat class.

 

[guachi]

It's too bad that maneuvers have been relegated solely to the battlemaster as they provide a useful platform for building subclasses.

The result is subclasses where you end up saying "I'd rather play a battlemaster"

 

[Ancalagon]

It's too bad that maneuvers have been relegated solely to the battlemaster as they provide a useful platform for building subclasses.

The result is subclasses where you end up saying "I'd rather play a battlemaster"

Have you seen the Bard: College of swords?

 

[Ancalagon]

Purple dragon is pretty awful. For a support fighter it offers little in the way of support. Still very playable though, the core fighter is a strong combat class.

I believe the Cavalier is an upgraded version of that - any comments?

 

[unknowable]

I believe the Cavalier is an upgraded version of that - any comments?

Nothing alike, as similar to each other as the eldritch knight is to the champion.

The analogue will be whatever mike mearls ends up with with his warlord.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not that Battlemaster is more powerful, it's more popular because it's more interesting to play.